De Moor II:22: The Truth of Scripture

Concerning this its Object Sacred Scripture is conversant in such a Mode that it delivers that Truly; see this §.  Agreeably to itself; see § 23.  Perspicuously; see § 24-26.  And Perfectly; see § 27-31.

The Truth of Scripture, flowing from the infallible Inspiration of the Spirit of truth, is to be established in all things as Equal, not even with Natural Things excepted.

Our AUTHOR observes this against the hypothesis, quite opposite to the due veneration of Sacred Scripture, namely, that Scripture in Natural matters speaks according to the Erroneous opinion of the Common People.  This was the impious thesis of SPINOZA, Tractato Theologico-Politico, chapter II, pages 22, 23, 28, 29, chapter XIII, page 153, and also chapter XV, pages 166 and following, etc.; consult WALCH’S Miscellanea Sacra, book I, exercitation VI, § 3, page 146.  This has been assumed by some that have attempted to assert among other things the Motion of the Earth and the Rest of the Sun, that is, to the extent that they felt that this their hypothesis did not agree with the expression of Scripture, of which below in Chapter VIII, § 26, our AUTHOR treats; just as CHRISTOPH WITTICH[1] undertook to defend that crude assertion concerning Scripture speaking in Natural matters according to the Erroneous opinion of the Common People against all objections; who himself also foolishly uttered similar witticisms concerning Sacred Scripture:  see WITSIUS’ Twist des Heeren met zynen Wyngaard, chapter XXI, pages 278-281; VAN MASTRICHT’S Gangrænam Novitatum Cartesianarum, posterior Section, chapter V, § 1-3, pages 62-66, chapter VI, § 2, page 76.  BEKKER,[2] in his Orbe Fascinante, accommodated the same thesis to his own hypothesis concerning Demons; see among other things book II, chapter I.  THOMAS BURNET, in his Telluris Theoria Sacra and Archæologia Philosophica,[3] also applied the same to his hypotheses concerning the Creation of the World and the Flood.  In Telluris, that is, Theoria Sacra, book I, chapter I, he asserts:  “Where the Sacred Scriptures set forth the circumstances and adjuncts of natural things, it is done in a human manner, as things exhibit themselves to our senses, and are wont to be conceived and accepted by the greatest part of men; although not rarely it turns out to be alien to the sciences, to the nature of things, and to Philosophical truth;” things similar to which he also has elsewhere:  consult our AUTHOR, Exercitationibus textualibus, Part II, Exercise II, § 13, 16; WALCH’S Miscellanea Sacra, book I, exercitation VI, § 7, pages 151-153.

The Scope/Goal of this thesis is certainly to seek patronage for certain preconceived philosophical propositions, but not conformable to Scripture.

But this thesis is not able to be reconciled, α.  with the θεοπνευστίᾳ and Inspiration of the whole of Sacred Scripture, both in Spiritual Things, and in Natural Things, by the same Infallible Spirit, 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21; but the Spirit of Truth is not able to be the teacher of any error, John 16:13.

β.  Thus the God of Truth, which is His name, Isaiah 65:16, would have lied, and would have spoken otherwise than He felt, being made a false witness, in which manner He would have denied Himself:  but these things are impossible, Titus 1:2; 2 Timothy 2:13.

γ.  There is no reason to presume that God omniscient, who is Himself the Creator of the world, and hence knows intimately the things of Nature, and is best able to testify concerning the work of His own hands, has willed to deceive us, when He presents in Sacred Scripture testimony concerning Natural things, and either has willed to lead us into error, or to confirm us in it.  Contrariwise, we have far more confidence in a witness of that sort, than in our blind reasoning and the knowledge of our altogether imperfect minds.

δ.  Sacred Scripture’s universal and altogether pure Truth, so often asserted, would otherwise fall:  see what is affirmed concerning the whole of Scripture in Psalm 12:6; 19:7-9; 119:105, 130; John 17:17; Romans 15:4a, Whatever was written aforetime, was written to educate, not to deceive, us.

ε.  The Most Distinguished NIEUWENTYT thinks that he is able to confound audacious Philosophers of this sort, who on account of theses of Scripture contrary to their own hypotheses do not fear to accuse the Scripture of error; when in his Cosmotheoria, with a great many examples brought forth, he contends that the Sacred Scripture philosophizes much more sublimely than was done either by men of that age, when the Sacred Codex was written, or is even done at any time by the Philosophers of our age:  unto which argumentation of Nieuwentyt, nevertheless, it shall be helpful to add cautions, which Reverend BUURT supplies in his notis on Buddeus’ Atheismo et Superstitione, chapter VII, § 7 ††, pages 483, 484.

ϛ.  If the opposite opinion stands, the Sacred Scripture no longer remains the infallible rule of our faith, and the sole and ultimate principium of the same:  but faith is converted into human and Philosophical Knowledge, which will teach us to admit and to interpret Scripture according to the authority and opinion of the Philosophers.

ζ.  With the opposite hypothesis posited, it shall be lawful to twist the entirety of Scripture to our pleasure, and no certainty shall remain in it; for the event immediately showed that all spiritual things are easily drawn into the circuit of Natural things, that is, relatively to the Angelic Spirits in Bekker; and with respect to God Himself in others, who, testing all things by their own Innate Ideas as a Lydian stone, and appealing to the tribunal of reason, either in the explication of the divine Attributes withdrew from the true path, or concerning the very Trinity began to doubt, or did not admit the natural and true Generation of the Son of God from the Father:  just as CHRISTOPH WITTICH, in his Dissertatione de Abusu Scripturæ, chapter III, so that he might all the more easily evince that the Scripture in Natural things speaks according to the erroneous opinion of the common people, also contends in more things that Scripture in many passages concerning matters practical and moral, in divine matters of faith, indeed in the explication of the divine nature, accommodates itself to the erroneous capacity of the common people, and speaks according to the opinion of men declining from the truth;  see VAN MASTRICHT’S Gangrænam Novitatum Cartesianarum, prior Section, chapter VIII, § 2, pages 62-66, chapter IX, § 1-4, pages 92, 96-99.

η.  AUGUSTINE demonstrated greater sobriety at this point, who was not daring to believe that any of the Canonical Writers erred in writing:  but was most firmly believing that none of those erred at all.  And if, says he, I should stumble across anything in those books that might appear contrary to the truth; I do not doubt that it is nothing other than either a faulty codex, or a translation that does not follow what is said, or my own misunderstanding, Epistla LXXXII ad Hieronymum, chapter I, opera, tome 2, column 144.  The Belgic Confession also states it beautifully in Article V:  “We believe without doubt all things that are contained in them, and that, not so much because the Church receives them as Canonical, as because the Holy Spirit testifies to our consciences that they emanated from God.”  According to which article, 1.  all things revealed in Sacred Scripture are to believed without discrimination; 2.  from the testimony of the Holy Spirit in our hearts; 3.  because they emanated from God.

Indeed, unto the Capacity of the Common People, and imperfection of our human ability, by συγκατάβασιν/condescension the Spirit speaking in Scripture accommodates Himself:  but He never speaks according to the Errors of the Common People.  He is able to narrate historically the errors of the vulgar, but not to approve or teach the same.

Neither is the contrary elicited, 1.  From Passages in which the Scriptures denominates things, or narrates histories, according to their External Appearance.  For,

α.  It is one thing to speak according to External Appearance, which even the DUTCH on Genesis 1:16 and Ecclesiastes 12:2 acknowledge to be done in Sacred Scripture; it is another thing to speak erroneously.  So then, it is one thing to speak according to the opinion of the vulgar, founded in the external appearance of things, which strikes the senses, which is conceded by AMANDUS POLANUS, Syntagmate Theologiæ, book V, chapter XXIII, page 301 at the end, page 302 at the beginning; FRANCIS JUNIUS, Prælectione in Genesi, chapters 1, 16, opera, tome 1, column 15, 131; and others:  it is another thing to speak according to the Errors of the Vulgar.  β.  As we concede that Scripture sometimes speaks according to External Appearance, so expressions of this sort because of some greater probability are not to be multiplied at pleasure.  γ.  These expressions are not restricted to things natural, but they also obtain in dogmatics, for example, Romans 14:15, ὑπὲρ οὗ Χριστὸς ἀπέθανε, for whom Christ died, that is, apparently died; so also in morals, Matthew 9:13, where by δικαίους, the righteous, are understood those putatively righteous; compare the DUTCH on Ezekiel 3:20, number 54.  δ.  Where expressions of this sort occur, they are always able to be discerned from the nature of the thing and context or parallels:  in this way is sufficiently understood what Moses writes in Genesis 1:16 concerning the two great Lights, the Sun and the Moon; a.  he does not speak of two great bodies, but great Lights:  but thus the Moon, by reason of the use that it furnishes for us, is able truly to be called; for, although in itself it is a dark body, with the help of the Light received from the sun it gives more Light to our world that all the stars together, and thus it is truly called a great Light.  b.  Nevertheless, the vast difference, which comes between the Sun and the Moon, is indicated at the same time, while in the same verse the Sun and the Moon are designated comparatively with respect to each other, the Sun being the great Light, the Moon the small Light:  consult VAN MASTRICHT’S Gangrænam Novitatum Cartesianarum, posterior Section, chapter XXI, § 6, page 390.

Hardly pertaining to this is that which Luke has in Acts 27:27, ὑπενόουν οἱ ναῦται προσάγειν τινὰ αὐτοῖς χώραν, the shipmen conjectured that some country drew near to them.  Seeing that, a.  here only the opinion of those sailors is narrated historically.  b.  Προσάγειν is here used intransitively for to draw near to:  but to draw near to is to become nearer, which is able to be said truly of the land and the ship.  c.  It is not certain that the erroneous opinion of sailors is related here; in that there is no one that does not believe that all sailors rightly knew that a ship properly approaches land, and the land does not approach the ship by motion from its place.  d.  A Mechanical definition is given in addition, according to which the land is best able to be said to approach, namely, this:  “The respective swiftness of the two bodies is that whereby they approach to one another, or move away from each other, whatever the proper swiftness of each might be:  indeed, whether both bodies move, or one or the other remain at rest:”  consult NIEUWENTYT’S Cosmotheoriam, chapter XXVII, § 10, page 758; VAN MASTRICHT’S Gangrænam Novitatum Cartesianarum, prior Section, chapter VII, § 10-14.

Objection 2:  The end of the Scripture is not to teach natural matters.  This is the objection of Spinoza, Epistola XXV, in opera posthuma, page 458, It is not the intent of Scripture to teach Philosophy, nor to make men learned, but rather obedient:  compare the passages of Spinoza cited at the beginning of this section.  Similar views are held by Wittich, Burnet, Bekker, etc.:  see VAN MASTRICHT’S Gangrænam Novitatum Cartesianarum, prior Section, chapter VII, § 6-9.

Responses:  α.  I concede that the principal End of Scripture is to teach true Religion.  β.  But the principal end does not exclude the less principal, subordinated to the former, which sort is able to be conceived, to teach men the magnificent natural works of God, so that hence they might rise to the knowledge of the virtues of the Creator God.  γ.  Neither is it fitting that the Holy Spirit tend toward his Target/Goal through errors, or ever deliver in any matter, whether making more or less toward the Goal of Scripture, anything that might be contrary to the truth:  compare VRIESIUS’ Exercitationem de Officio Philosophi circa Revelata, in which, with § 24 compared with § 21, he warns that this is not to be admitted without caution, which Descartes inculcates in part II of Epistolarum, c., page 327:  “They abuse the Scripture, if any wish to elicit from it knowledge of matters pertaining only to human sciences, and not regarding our salvation.”

Altogether pious is the Decree of the Orders of Holland of September 30, 1656, to restrain that audacity of the Philosophers, of which this section has treated; in which most expressly prohibit the interpretation of the Sacred Scripture even in those matters that are evident and learned in some measure from nature also, according to preconceived philosophical opinions.  That Decree is found in WILTENS’ Kerkelyk Placaat-boek, pages 306-311, in which see especially page 309.  What upon occasion of the assertion concerning Scripture speaking according to the erroneous prejudice of the common people, proscribed by the Curators of the Academy of Batava on January 16, 1676, for the defense of that, and concerning similar expressions found among the greatest Theologians, HEIDANUS wrote, see in his Consideratien, etc., pages 74-78:  compare SPANHEIM’S Epistolam de novissimis in Belgio dissidiis, pages 59, 60.  Upon this entire §, read entirely the Most Illustrious PETRUS VAN MASTRICHT’S Gangrænam Novitatum Cartesianarum, prior Section, chapters V-IX, pages 62-105:  see the Reverend PETRUS DINANT’S de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter III, § 50-52, pages 494-501, § 61-64, pages 518-528; LILIENTHAL, Oordeelk Bybelverklar, chapter X, part 5, pages 1-306.

[1] Christoph Wittich (1625-1687) was a Dutch Theologian and Cartesian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Duisburg (1653-1654), Nijmegen (1655-1671), and Leiden (1671-1687).

[2] Balthasar Bekker (1634-1698) was a Dutch minister, although ultimately deposed.  He was a proponent of Cartesian Rationalism, arguing that philosophy and theology must be kept in separate spheres, the former for the exploration of natural truths, and the latter for the exploration of supernatural truths of Scripture.

[3] Thomas Burnet (c. 1636-1715) was an English scholar, theologian, and author.  He is remembered for his speculative cosmogony:  Burnet believed that the waters of the earth’s oceans were insufficient to explain a worldwide flood; he hypothesized a hallow earth containing water, which was unleashed during the flood.  Methodologically he reinterprets, or sets aside, Scripture to suit his pseudo-scientific hypotheses.